Why are men so inconsiderate

[Mum2boy]

I put ds down for a nap this afternoon and I wanted him to have a decent sleep, because he hasn't been sleeping all that well the last few nights and I knew he was tired. Anyway he'd been asleep for about 1/2 an hour when dh came home at around 1.00pm, and much to my irritation he went around the house making just about every conceivable noise, even though he knew ds was asleep. I didn't say anything for a minute and then when he started to get louder, I asked him if he could try to be a bit more quiet - which I thought was reasonable - and he started shouting at me right outside ds' bedroom, saying "I'M NOT GOING TO GO AROUND IN SILENCE JUST BECAUSE HE'S ASLEEP, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BE QUIET IN MY OWN HOUSE" etc etc etc. I was so furious that he had yelled at me right outside ds' room, let alone that he didn't give a crp about waking ds up, that I called him a selfish d*khead and stormed out of the house for a couple of hours. Not the nicest thing in the world to say, but I cannot understand why he can't keep the noise down for 1 HOUR out of his entire day - I mean he doesn't even try. I just feel he's being so inconsiderate, after all it's me who would have to deal with ds being tired & cranky if he got woken up. I do just about everything for ds & if I want any help from dh, I have to ask for it.

Can anyone understand my feeling about this or is it really too much to ask? Perhaps if dh had to spend as much time taking care of ds as I do, he might think differently about what he does. I just can't stand men sometimes...

oh yes you are near me then.....

My husband just sent me the following link with the subject line: "in case this hasn't been posted on mumsnet yet.."

Sparewheel

Warning: it's a 2.7 MB movie (.mpg), but funny. Irrelevant, somewhat, also, but hey.

Tom never said he would stop posting, it's only us women who make over-emotional threats like that!
I have posted in the fathersdirect forum, it's there under my nickname for all to see in case any of you want to. Whereas I only got one reply from a very nice, I did get some personal replies from Tom himself which was very kind and helpful of him.
Men ARE different to women, as the two sites will verify. We deal with emotions a lot on here, whereas men want to deal with practical issues. They often feel a bit threatened by talk of emotion, so a man is more likely to post on a fathers site than on this one. Whilst I know Mumsnet would be very supportive to fathers seeking advice, I know that a lot of fathers would feel intimidated posting on a site that is dominated by women. After all, when you want to rant about your partner, you don't rant to men about him do you? You rant to other women who are going to take your side. So when men want advice on dealing their their pregnant partners, they seek other men to ask advice from. That's just the way it goes.

I have no problem with having separate sites, us women need a forum to deal with our emotions our way, and we know we will get loads of sympathy from fellow mums on here, and dads need the same. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I wish my dh would log onto fathersdirect, but he can't even send an email let alone join a discussion site!

And I for one agree with the group fathers-4-justice. There is way too much sexism in childcare these days. There are many, many more fathers denied access to their kids than there are mothers. It hurts on either side, but certainly I know of a lot of men who pay maintenance yet see very little of their children or have any input into their upbringing, such as schooling and so on. And whilst there are men who are happy not to have contact, there are plenty more who are not, and who are unfairly treated by the courts. Equality for all is what I stand for, and I support any group who tries to achieve that end, male or female.

Twinkie, I don't think it's fair to say that Bob Geldof 'allowed' his children to live with Paula when she was a drug addict - he fought and fought in court to get shared parenting - he had little choice but to comply with the courts ruling which originally gave her residence and him very limited contact (rather than shared residence). After he was told she had drugs in the house he went back to court and spent more shedloads of money and emotional pain etc and got residence in his favour. The girls still saw their mother as they very much wanted to. And of course, Tiger Lily wasn't his daughter so he had no say about her at all (she was the only child living with Paula when she died).
The vast majority of non-resident fathers are men. Yes, I am sure some are violent or abusive, but that's not the point, I feel. The whole court system is tipped in favour of residence for the woman and limited contact for the man, regardless of his abilities and commitment as a father. It them becomes the woman who 'permits' a father to see his own children. I do think this is wrong. Obviously there will be cases where little or no contact is best but I don't think we should assume that is the case in every case, which the courts do at present. Nothing can stop a woman with residence moving to Australia on a whim and taking the kids with her. Dh lived in fear of his ex taking their daughter to live many miles away. She also has successfully reduced his contact despite promising not to - he has cried many tears over it. So has my stepdaughter, and I too have been in the car with her sobbing and sobbing so hard she had a massive nosebleed because she didn't want to leave her dad at the end of the weekend so we both know exactly how you feel. The difference is, I think in your case your ex was/is a terrible person, but my dh isn't!

Message withdrawn

aloha: "The vast majority of non-resident fathers are men."

I'd hope all of them were men

(Yeah, yeah... I know you were going to type "parents" really...)

Sorry, it just made me giggle.

Oh, poo! you wouldn't think I wrote for a living, would you

Twinkie, I don't think it's fair to say that Bob Geldof 'allowed' his children to live with Paula when she was a drug addict - he fought and fought in court to get shared parenting - he had little choice but to comply with the courts ruling which originally gave her residence and him very limited contact (rather than shared residence). After he was told she had drugs in the house he went back to court and spent more shedloads of money and emotional pain etc and got residence in his favour. The girls still saw their mother as they very much wanted to. And of course, Tiger Lily wasn't his daughter so he had no say about her at all (she was the only child living with Paula when she died).
The vast majority of non-resident fathers are men. Yes, I am sure some are violent or abusive, but that's not the point, I feel. The whole court system is tipped in favour of residence for the woman and limited contact for the man, regardless of his abilities and commitment as a father. It them becomes the woman who 'permits' a father to see his own children. I do think this is wrong. Obviously there will be cases where little or no contact is best but I don't think we should assume that is the case in every case, which the courts do at present. Nothing can stop a woman with residence moving to Australia on a whim and taking the kids with her. Dh lived in fear of his ex taking their daughter to live many miles away. She also has successfully reduced his contact despite promising not to - he has cried many tears over it. So has my stepdaughter, and I too have been in the car with her sobbing and sobbing so hard she had a massive nosebleed because she didn't want to leave her dad at the end of the weekend so we both know exactly how you feel. The difference is, I think in your case your ex was/is a terrible person, but my dh isn't!

Dadslib - do you suffer from PMT or something? I like the way you just pop up in these threads with one-liners hoping someone will notice you, how insecure of you!!

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Don't suppose you've tried wallowing in self-pity have you?

Message withdrawn

Definitely PMT! Just jesting Dadslib - we do that on here, a bit of light-hearted fun can often take the sting out of previous bad situations. If you can't have a laugh at yourself then you're in the wrong place. How come you think everyone is out to get you? I've stuck up for you before, I've not changed personalities since then you know! Although a lobotomy has been mentioned, but that's my personal life!

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Fair enough Twinkie but I'm sure you will agree that it is in the child's best interests (most of the time) to have equal access to BOTH parents. To deny the child time with either parent is not only cruel on that parent but cruel on the child too. What dads are saying is that the courts do seem to offer custody in favour of the woman, and whilst men are now hounded for maintenance, no-one seems to care that much if they are denied access to their children. Getting the courts to allow equal access is a struggle, and then getting the court to uphold that ruling is even more of a struggle. Meanwhile all of this cannot help but affect the children involved.

Twinkie, Fathers Direct is NOT a fathers rights organisation. We are NOT focussed on custody/separation issues. Have a look through our site. It is parenting for fathers, which IS gendered, because men and women come to parenting from very different socialisation experiences, men don't give birth, breastfeed, get a year of leave etc etc. Most parenting material is aimed at women, FD aims to inform dads.

You'll find alot of posts on our forum about separation/divorce, simply because alot of fathers are in pain about these issues - 96% of residence orders are given to mothers, which leaves alot of non-res fathers. But this issue is not the main focus of Fathers Direct - we're more concerned with issues like fathers in ante/post natal settings, the workplace, early years services, family services, prisons, domestic violence, child protection, schools etc etc. We are not the specialists on Family Law so tend to take a back seat on this issue and let others lead. Hope this is clear now.

But of course you're right - if you're non-res, it doesn't matter what gender you are. And children rarely care what gender a parent is if that parent is loving and kind and looks after them.

There are those, however, who would say that the courts are gender biased. There was a case last year I think of a SAHD whose partner worked in the city. They separated, and the mother told the judge she had decided to quit her job to look after her children. The judge commended her and awarded her residence of the children. The SAHD (after 5 years of looking after his children full time) was suddenly cut off from his children except for every other weekend. I can't see that EVER happening if the genders were switched.

But I do understand where you're coming from on this.

Tom, about the leave for birthdays poll - that confused me. Presumably most employees are entitled to a certain number of days off a year and are at liberty to choose their kid's birthday as one of them if that's what they want. But this would make the poll pointless, so I wondered if it meant an additional PAID day off for birthdays.
Was this indeed what the poll was sugggesting?

If so who would pay for the day off?

@fucktom...... are you feeling quite alright?

Is this a record for resurrecting a zombie thread? 🤣